REVIEW OF DEBATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20620, 19 July 1930, Page 13

REVIEW OF DEBATE.

EXHAUSTIVE DISCUSSION.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

CONTINUATION NEXT WEEK.

[BY TELEGRAPH-.—special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Friday.

Hailed oil all sides as one of the most important measures that could come before Parliament during the present ses sion, tho Unemployment Bill reappeared in the House of Representatives to-day at the second reading stage and was exhaustively discussed all day. The llouso rose for the day at 5.30 p.m. with tho debate still unfinished, but it was generally expected at tho outset that the'discussion would overlap into next week, and the Prime Minister, the, Hon. G. W. Forbes, has indicated his willingness to set Tuesday and Wednesday aside if necessary for the continuation of tho debate;

The chief point of the Reform criticism of the bill was the provision for the payment of sustenance allowances. Tho Leader of the Opposition, the lit. Hon. J G. Coates, deprecated tho principle of giving something for nothing, and suggested tho subsidising of industries as a better alternative.

While welcoming tho bill as an important step in direction of alleviating the unemployment problem, Labour speakers protested at the proposal to make a uniform levy on all males over 20 years, and argued that tjio tax should be graduated according to the ability to pay The Labour Party also urged that women workers should bo made contributors to the scheme and participants in the benefits.

Labour was not altogether satisfied with tho amounts allowed for sustenance payments and argued that tho rates should in all cases be higher.

As tho bill is subsequently to be referred to a special committee, it seems inevitable that many of its provisions will bo remodelled. Indeed, an official intimation was given that all suggestions for improvements to tho bill would bo welcomed. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. EX-SERVICEMEN'S ATTITUDE. REPRESENTATION ON BOARD. [nr TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER.] WELLINGTON. Friday. "The able-bodied returned soldiers do not want any special privileges," declared Mr. E. Waite (Reform —Clutha), in speaking on tho Unemployment Bill in tho House of Representatives to-day. He expressed tho opinion that the recommendations made by the Ex-Soldiers' Rehabilitation Commission had been embodied in the bill, a fact with which returned soldiers were not in agreement. Mr. Waito said from what he knew of the returned soldiers' attitude, they were desirous that the recommendations of the commission should be included in a special measure and not combined in llic IJnenployment Bill. "There is a strong feeling among ex-servicemen against the disabled soldiers' problem and the employable soldiers' problem being dealt with in this bill. Returned soldiers will not bo satisfied with this first instalment and I <io not think the returned soldiers specifically want representation on this board. The able-bodied returned soldier is prepared to be treated the same as every other person in this country. They do object to the present proposals if the bill is to take the place of the recommendations of the Rehabilitation Commission.'' I think there is something to be said for the remarks of the last speaker on I ho question of the unloading of responsibility for the Rehabilitation Commission's report from the shoulders of the Government on those of the Unemployment Board," said Mr. M. ,J. Savago (Labour—Auckland West). "Coming from a returned soldier, it gives one much food for thought about making any special provision" on the board. .As has been pointed out by the member for Clutha, able-bodied men are not asking for any special privileges. If the board provided for under the bill is to be saddled with the responsibility suggested it seems to me as if the Government will be able to sleep at nights better than it has been doing in tho past. A lot of its worries will have gone."